appium_mobile_keyboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is expected to mutate state. The description confirms the hide action is mutating and the is_shown action is a query, but does not add deeper behavioral details such as side effects when the keyboard is already hidden, platform-specific quirks, or error conditions. It adds the platform scope (Android/iOS), which is useful context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the action mappings. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and easily scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the actions but fails to specify the return value for is_shown (expected boolean). It also does not mention error handling or platform-specific behaviors. While the core functionality is clear, the missing return-type detail leaves a gap for an agent relying on the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description duplicates the parameter information already present in the schema (e.g., keys are only for hide, action enum). It adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb-resource pairing: hide the software keyboard or check its visibility, scoped to Android/iOS. It names the two specific actions (hide, is_shown) and maps them to Appium commands, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like appium_mobile_press_key.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states what the tool does and the two action variants, but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied (keyboard control), but no exclusions or sibling routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.